Dear Sharron Angle, About Those Second Amendment Remedies.....

Dear Sharron Angle,

You famously said the following in January:

"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Now I will agree with you, in basic substance, that the Second Amendment is the final check on a real tyranny. I'm not sure that spending too much, bailing out AIG and the automakers and reforming healthcare really qualifies as a tyranny, but I digress.

It is also true, and I am sure you'll agree, that the right to marry whom you want is a fundamental right. Even the Supreme Court has said so, like in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1968).

At present the case of Perry v. Schwarzennegger, wherein a Federal judge initially appointed by Ronald Reagan and confirmed under George H.W. Bush, Vaughn R. Walker, found that California's Proposition 8, outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional, is likely heading to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Judge Walker found that Proposition 8, among other things, violated the due process clauses and equal protection clauses, and was based on stereotypes and prejudices which are out of date. It was an act of supreme courage in our balkanized times.

Sharron, it is obvious that once this case reaches the Supreme Court which way 8 of the judges will vote. We all know that the liberal block of Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg will most likely vote to uphold Judge Vaughn's ruling, and that the activist conservatives of Alito, Scalia, Roberts the Umpire, and Thomas will do Constitutional gymnastics in order to find some lousy reason to reject it. Then there is the wild card of Justice Kennedy, and upon him ride the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans who only want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us - just kidding!

So let's say that Kennedy goes with his activist conservative pals, like he did on the abominable Citizens United v. FEC, wherein he wrote the opinion, and created out of whole cloth a corporate aristocracy from nothing. Let's say they overturn Judge Walker's decision, and reinstate that blessed example of a tyranny of the slimmest majorities, Proposition 8, and in so doing remove a fundamental right from approximately 10% of American citizens, and throw equal protection under the law under a bus, as well as a long line of cases, including Loving v. Virginia.

I think we can all agree that the gay population of the United States is probably not the most heavily armed demographic. I know very few gays who know what Mossy Oak [tm] is, much less own any. But I was wondering what you would think is the appropriate Second Amendment Remedy - your word, not mine - for a group of people that have most certainly lost a fundamental right by an actual tyranny of a majority, and to have that removal upheld by a bunch of unaccountable activist jurists sitting in their ivory tower, answerable to no one.

Anyway, get back to me when you can, but before Election day. I know a lot of people that would be interested in your answer, myself most of all.

TTFN,

RayRay

Happy Guy Fawkes Day!

The title of this post has nothing to do with its contents. Rather, I just wanted to remind the people of the gunpowder, treason and plot.

That said, I have a little rant about these ballot measures, namely the recent Maine popular vote, as well as California's Prop 8 of 2008, which give cover to the haters in our nation when they choose to divide us over what are otherwise fundamental rights - whom to marry, make a family with and associate our lives.

The cover is that these measures, being a popular vote, make the denial of Civil Rights seem the will of the people. But that is simply the tyranny of the majority at work, something which is abhorred by a Constitutional system of government. Respect for minority opinions is a piece of the bedrock upon which our Republic is founded, and, parenthetically, one of the problems with trying to export our system to places which have no such liberal tradition, like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Think of it this way: when the case of Loving v. Virginia came down in the 1960's, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws (laws preventing blacks from marrying whites), do you think a ballot initiative rolling back this case would have passed in Alabama or Mississippi? Or Vermont?

This is the problem with having a simple majority decide fundamental and/or Civil Rights. We The People are, though better than most nations, not much better than a mob. And such fundamental matters, like who is a person's spouse, or next of kin, or who should have a say in end-of-life matters should not be left up to the mob or which side has a better turnout on a given election day.

In the end it demeans the concepts of a constitutional democratic republic, respect for minorities, and Civil Rights. For if the mob can decide who is permitted to marry or not, based on little substance beyond a phobia of a given minority, then the door for more abuses of mob mentality is left ajar.

November Comeuppance

It looks like both sides of the aisle got some comeuppance yesterday. And we will be hearing the chattering classes parse yesterday's election results as if they were reading tea leaves of absolute truth.

But these are my observations:

• - John Corzine, a weak incumbent in a state, New Jersey, which is in a constant state of flux, was destined to lose to any challenger with enough Moxie. Congratulations to Chris Christie on his victory. And condolences for having to now govern New Jersey, the state voted "Most lacking its own identity." As far as national politics goes, this registers as a C- on the Witch Hunt scale of importance. Yes, it is good for the GOP to have won the statehouse. But it is not that big a deal, as Jersey fluctuates the party of its governor regularly. This is not a repudiation of Obama as much a repudiation of Corzine, who did a bad job and never delivered on his promises.
• - The Virginia election, where the GOP was also victorious, also registers relatively low. I give this one a C+ in importance, if only because Virginia was one of the new "blue" [geez, I hate the color coding of America] states in 2008, and it would have kept Obama rolling and the GOP on its heels. Again, not so much a repudiation of Obama, but more of one than the New Jersey results. But we'll hear about this like it was the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
• - The 23rd District of the Great State of New York went to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, who narrowly defeated the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. This one is, for me, elucidating, inasmuch as a ton of national media attention was poured onto this race, mostly because the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out after being pressured by national conservatives, namely Sarah Palin and Dick Armey. Apparently, Scozzafava was not conservative enough, and in the quest for absolute ideological purity, specifically the desire to invade wombs and prevent gays from marrying, Palin and Armey, those scions of Northeast politics, drove her out. Then they selected a guy who isn't even from the district, who had little idea of the "parochial" interests of the area, and who lost. In a district that had been reliably Republican since the Civil War, more or less. I guess this might be a repudiation of Palin and Armey and GOP purity. Or maybe not. As for impact, I give this race a C, and only because Palin got burned.

So, the Democrats, feckless as usual, failing to deliver, have been given a wake up call. Maybe they'll pull their craniums out of their rectums and actually do something with their massive majority. And let the Blue Dogs be put on notice: failure is worse than doing something unpopular.

But the GOP has also been given a wake up call, and I hope they hear it. We need a counter balance to the Dems, and "No" just isn't it. And the alarm ringing this morning was that party purity is not a winning ticket, it's stupidity; and while Palin and her buddy Armey are really ideologically pure, national political strategists they are not.

Finally, I would like to place a pox on the houses of all those ninkompoops who voted yesterday in Maine to repeal the law permitting gay marriage. You guys suck. I mean that. What you did was mean, hurtful, and hateful, and I don't care that you think your opinion matters. Suck eggs. And the backers, be they the Catholic or Mormon or other churches: you suck, too, using Christ as your aegis for hate and divisiveness. Really. I think if churches want to be this involved in politics, fine, but then we get to tax the crap out of you.

Now I also want to start my own stupid petition regarding marriage: I want to ban marriage for all the other proscriptions as set forth in Leviticus. That means if you eat shellfish, an "abomination," you are not allowed to be married. Wear cotton/rayon blends, also an "abomination," then you too shall be denied marriage. Oh, you like bacon cheeseburgers? Abomination, no marriage for you. Any takers?

California Steaming

The California Supreme Court dropped and ball, and dropped it big time. In the never ending search for fairness for all Americans under the law, the lilly livered justices of the Golden State's High Court decided to reverse themselves in a fashion I have never witnessed in my adult life.

If you recall, the Californis Supreme Court decided not too long ago that the Constitution of the state mandated that gay and lesbian couples be afforded the right to marry the person of their choice. They had based this prior decision on the failure of any other scheme, like civil unions, to provide EQUAL PROTECTION under the law, namely the fundamental right to marry.

Not to be outdone by such mundane concepts like basic fairness, common decency and equal protection under the law, certain member of the Californian electorate, most of whom are members of what is euphemistically called the religious right, put forth Proposition 8, which banned future gay and lesbian marriages.

Bizarrely, the decision, which ran to 130+ pages, permitted the 18,000 gay and lesbian unions that took place prior to the decision to stand, stating that Prop 8 did not entirely repeal or abrogate the prior marriages. Rather, the 6 cowards agreed that the word marriage now only applies to heterosexual unions, but that all the same rights are preserved in civil unions. This begs the question of why all the bother............

This was a terrible decision, and permit me to say why: the California Supreme Court found, in a prior decision, that the right to marry the person of your choice was a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Those are magic words. Fundamental means basic; means the entry level; means without this, there are no following rights.

This prior decision was therefore precedent, and should have been respected as such.

Under the United States Constitution the fundamental rights are the ones like freedom of and from religion; freedom to move about the nation unfettered and live where you want; to have or not have children; the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; the right to counsel. These are the rights we don't need government imprimatur. We possess them because we are Americans. Period.

And these fundamental rights cannot be taken away by a whim. Majority rule does not, and need not apply. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. You can look up on your own what an arduous process that is.

Yet, the California Supreme Court has now permitted the destruction of what it already found to be a fundamental right based upon a popular vote, notwithstanding prior precedence. Ladies and gentlemen, this a textbook case of what we call the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY, and what Constitutions are meant to prevent. It is very un-American for this turn of events to have occurred.

And the one courageous dissenting justice, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, said it best when he wrote that Proposition 8 means "requiring discrimination" which "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" and "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

The Witch Hunt salutes you, Justice Moreno.

For those celebrating this travesty, enjoy your schadenfreude for now. But also know you have contributed to the pain for millions of your fellow Americans for the sake of your petty vanities. And there shall be a comeuppance, and conservatism shall be further marginalized for its mendacious ways. You are people not "preserving marriage" but rather trying to destroy your fellow American out of some sort of baseless jealousy or other hatred.

You all should be ashamed for your schadenfreude. Such joy at the pain of others is sinful, at least according to the Bible I have read. Your lack of compassion for your fellow man evinces your unworthiness of the epithet "Christian." Verily, you are the modern day Pharisees.

And I also know that those of you celebrating this as a victory only feel this way because you are homophobes. Plain and simple. Well, please do us a favor, check your calendar, and figure out this is the 21st Century. Please take you Medieval attitudes about the very natural phenomenon of homosexuality, stuff them somewhere, and actually read the Book of Leviticus. You will find a lot of things in there that are called abominations, and some of them are mundane and some you have already done twice today, like eat shellfish or bacon. If you are wearing a polyester/cotton blend, you are an abomination. Just like the gays and lesbians you hate so much.

And if you are lucky, maybe you will realize that the Old Testament is simply a collection of loosely related stories, and not to be taken literally.

Last I checked, Jesus Christ was mum on this issue, among others. And he probably doesn't appreciate his name being taken in vain and the like.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: beware those who tell you they know the mind of God; they are either mad, or lying to you.

Liberty University - Putting the Moron in Oxymoron

It was reported over the weekend that the bastion of a solid liberal arts education, Liberty University, founded by the corpulent Jerry Falwell, has ordered its nascent College Democrats Club to disband.

While the club may still meet on campus, Liberty U., as poorly named a school as there ever was, will not lend its name or school funds to the club.

As the Associated Press reported, Vice president of student affairs, Mark Hine, sent an email to the club's president that the decision was made due the the national Democratic Party's support of abortion, socialism, and the "LGBT Agenda."

The school's Chancellor and President [hmmm, what other famous person held both of those titles...?] Jerry Falwell, Jr., in defending the decision, quixotically stated, among other things:

"To blindly support any candidate solely because of party affiliation irrespective of moral values is wrong. Liberty would never endorse a Republican student group that supported abortion rights."

However, Mr. Falwell, Jr., is apparently not proof reading his online statements, as a mere five paragraphs above this statement Mr. Falwell, Jr., stated:

"The students who formed the Democrat club last October are good students. They are pro-life and believe in traditional marriage."

So, which is it, Mr. Falwell, Jr. Please don't tell me you haven't brushed
up on your Exodus in a while. It appears you re bearing false witness against thy students, and you should be ashamed for a) talking out of both sides of your mouth, and b) making an issue of this magnitude over a Democrat Club. Not all Democrats support abortion rights, nor gay marriage rights, and you admit this. Yet you have stuffed YOUR OWN VIEWS of the Democratic party down the throats of your own young Democrats.

If I were their parents I would be demanding a refund.

Now, let's take a real look at the reasoning given for the ban. Seeing as abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the nation, and sound minded persons can disagree, I will give this issue a pass, for now.

That brings socialism up to bat. Pray tell, Mr. Falwell, Jr., where does Jesus come out against socialism? Where is it bad to share? Was it when he tossed the money changers out of the temple? Are there money changers in your temple, sir?

How about when he commanded to render unto Caesar? Or when he said that bit about a rich man, a camel, and an eye of a needle? Answers, please?

And I haven't even brought up any of the commands to charity Jesus issued.

Moving on, please tell me what's the lesbian, gay, and the transgendered agenda? That they want equal rights? What would Jesus say about that? As far as I know, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, or really anything about the prohibitions contained in Leviticus.

Speaking of Leviticus, where homosexuality is referred to as an abomination, isn't it also true that shrimp scampi and cotton-rayon blends are also abominations? I just want to make sure you are following ALL the words of the Bible, not just the ones you WANT to. I'm sure you aren't prideful enough to wear more than one type of thread, like a monogrammed shirt or something.

I think Jesus, who is oft equated with love, would not deny equality to any of his brothers and sisters, nor conflate religious institutions with secular ones for the sake of a remunerative wedge issue. You might want to fight me on this, but I will remind you to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's. I believe you have transposed one for the other, and your soul has become unclean.

And if all this isn't enough, wait until the first Young Republicans' Club is thrown off a campus for being a hate group.